View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
diddy
Joined: 28 Mar 2012 Posts: 288
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:57 am Post subject: Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f3.5 |
|
|
diddy wrote:
... still doing a decent job on a high resolution digital camera:
You can find a full size version here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/diddy/10574637926/
And with a minimum focusing distance of 1 meter, you can get quite close to the subject as well.
So my question to you: Is there any MF 135mm lens around with a higher resolution (ok, to be precise: one that isn't too expensive)? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
barryreid
Joined: 27 Aug 2013 Posts: 285 Location: London
Expire: 2015-11-04
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
barryreid wrote:
This is quite a good 135mm lens & price.
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/used-contax-135mm-f2-8-sonnar.html _________________ Canon + Contax + Minolta + Nikon + Olympus + Pentax + Yashica = Adaptall-2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shapencolour
Joined: 03 Oct 2013 Posts: 270
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
shapencolour wrote:
In the same price range you can get excellent late Minolta MC/MD Tele Rokkor 4/4 - very sharp with well corrected CA/LoCA.Mfd 1,5m,but more durable aperture mechanism.
Or MC Tele Rokkor/PF, 5/6 - a tad worse,but still a very,very good lens
Or Rollei/Zeiss Tele Tessar HFT 135/4 in QBM mount - 1,6mfd but typical Zeiss IQ
Or tiny SMC Pentax M 135/3.5 that needs to be stopped down to f5.6 to get rid of CA
Or nice Yashica ML 135/2.8 - 1.8 mfd and the same CA story as above
If you're lucky you can get Sonnar 135/2.8 C/Y for about 70 Euros more
Another lenses comparable in IQ/price that I can recommend basing on my own experience:
Hexanon 135/3.2
Canon FD 135/2.5 S.C.
OM Zuiko 135/3.5 and 2.8
SMC Takumar 135/2.5 _________________ shapencolour
Last edited by shapencolour on Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
diddy
Joined: 28 Mar 2012 Posts: 288
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
diddy wrote:
Thanks all for your replies and suggestions! I forgot to mention ... I can only use M42 screw mount or Pentax K mount lenses on my camera.
Also, in general, do you think that the CZJ is quite a high resolution lens and the alternatives would only give me a minimal advantage? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008 Posts: 6624 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
The CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 renders images quite beautifully IMO. A great value lens capable of cracking results. For portraits I prefer the Pentacon preset though...it's a bokeh thing _________________ Graham - Moderator
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GeorgeSalt
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 Posts: 336 Location: Norfolk, UK
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GeorgeSalt wrote:
There are certainly plenty of CZJ 135mm f/3.5 lenses available on the market.
I think the Teletessar 135mm f/4 might just have the edge over it for me personally, but I don't think that's available in m42 - only the Rollei qbm. The abundance of relatively cheap high quality 135mm lenses is one of the reasons I want to go full-frame. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
diddy
Joined: 28 Mar 2012 Posts: 288
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
diddy wrote:
Thanks all! Yes, I really like the rendering as well of the CZJ. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shapencolour
Joined: 03 Oct 2013 Posts: 270
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shapencolour wrote:
GeorgeSalt wrote: |
There are certainly plenty of CZJ 135mm f/3.5 lenses available on the market.
I think the Teletessar 135mm f/4 might just have the edge over it for me personally, but I don't think that's available in m42 - only the Rollei qbm. The abundance of relatively cheap high quality 135mm lenses is one of the reasons I want to go full-frame. |
There is Voigtlander Color Dynarex 135/4 with m42 mount - a tele tessar copy,but I have never tried one. _________________ shapencolour |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
shapencolour wrote: |
GeorgeSalt wrote: |
There are certainly plenty of CZJ 135mm f/3.5 lenses available on the market.
I think the Teletessar 135mm f/4 might just have the edge over it for me personally, but I don't think that's available in m42 - only the Rollei qbm. The abundance of relatively cheap high quality 135mm lenses is one of the reasons I want to go full-frame. |
There is Voigtlander Color Dynarex 135/4 with m42 mount - a tele tessar copy,but I have never tried one. |
I have the Color-Dynarex version. Nice lens, with lovely HFT colors, but chromatic aberrations are much worse than CZJ Sonnar 135 MC or Silver. _________________ .: APO-Maniac :. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
My option in m42, the steinheil macro quinar 135/2,8.
Better than the two czj 3,5/135.
And is a macro lens too. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
diddy
Joined: 28 Mar 2012 Posts: 288
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
diddy wrote:
thanks for your suggestion ... I did some search on the Steinheil ... it seems to be selling for rather a lot of money. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7553 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
The chrome Steinheil Quinar 135/2,8 is also very good and it focus down to 1 meter. It is an amazing piece of craftsmanship. Do not confuse it with the later zebra version(much longer MFD). The downside is it is heavy and you may need a tripod with it if you do close ups.
http://forum.mflenses.com/steinheil-muenchen-quinar-2-8-135-t19698,highlight,%2Bquinar+%2B135.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/quinar-2-8-135-t20435,highlight,%2Bquinar+%2B135.html _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I had the 3.5/135 Auto Tele-Quinar, as Calvin says, amazing piece of craftsmanship, the machining of the barrel was fantastic. However, the IQ wasn't upto the standards of the CZJ Sonnars or the S-K Tele-Xenars, might just have been my copy, but it wasn't as sharp or contrasty and colours were not as nice. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7553 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I had the 3.5/135 Auto Tele-Quinar, as Calvin says, amazing piece of craftsmanship, the machining of the barrel was fantastic. However, the IQ wasn't upto the standards of the CZJ Sonnars or the S-K Tele-Xenars, might just have been my copy, but it wasn't as sharp or contrasty and colours were not as nice. |
The 2.8 version is enhanced Ernostar type lerns and the 3.5 version seems have very different optical scheme. There is a leaflet on the following link showing the optical diagram of those chrome lens. I hope there will be a larger version to see the
http://www.baike.com/wiki/%E6%96%AF%E5%9D%A6%E6%B5%B7%E5%B0%94
Our memeber exaklaus had post a larger diagram of the 135 2.8 here.
Quote: |
|
_________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
asterinex
Joined: 04 Nov 2012 Posts: 311
|
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
asterinex wrote:
The CZJ 135/3.5 is an incredible lens. I had one and when I see my pics again made with this lens, I get blown away,
Very very sharp, nice rendering and colors. And not too big and heavy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
killwilly
Joined: 16 May 2011 Posts: 111 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
killwilly wrote:
This was taken with my Helios 135, a great little lens, which only cost me £20. The Flickr exif says it was taken with a Canon 35-85, not quite sure why it says that, I don't even own that lens.
IMG_0056.JPG Helios 135 by killwilly, on Flickr _________________ Alan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DR.JUAN
Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661
|
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
DR.JUAN wrote:
Ike occur
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I had the 3.5/135 Auto Tele-Quinar, as Calvin says, amazing piece of craftsmanship, the machining of the barrel was fantastic. However, the IQ wasn't upto the standards of the CZJ Sonnars or the S-K Tele-Xenars, might just have been my copy, but it wasn't as sharp or contrasty and colours were not as nice. |
Like with other brands, the 2,8 version is better than the 3,5 one. The macro quinar has 4 elements. The sonnar czj mc has so warm colors to me. And is not macro.
The contrast of the wuinar macro is good, not excesive. And the colors are real ones. Good lens for a long time, the czj.....not do good mechanically nor rendering. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
I had Quinar 2.8/135 borrowed for one week. It is very sharp in center, even wide-open and almost CA free. But on FF 5DII sharpness falls very quickly in the field. The CZJ Sonnars have more even performance on FF. Quinar is probably much better lens on crop or m4/3 cameras. _________________ .: APO-Maniac :. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7553 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
BRunner wrote: |
I had Quinar 2.8/135 borrowed for one week. It is very sharp in center, even wide-open and almost CA free. But on FF 5DII sharpness falls very quickly in the field. The CZJ Sonnars have more even performance on FF. Quinar is probably much better lens on crop or m4/3 cameras. |
Can you let me know which version you have tried. The chrome VL version or the later auto zebra version? I do not have a FF to test my VL version but I think the corner is not bad from some sample taken by a 5Dc. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Basilisk
Joined: 21 Mar 2013 Posts: 356 Location: UK
|
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Basilisk wrote:
Reviving a not so old thread rather than starting a new one.
Just purchased a mint condition late M42 CZJ 135 f3.5 (along with a still functioning MTL5, flektogon 35 f2.4 and a couple of pentacon lenses for £40).
Tests on my NEX5n confirm that this is indeed one of the sharpest lenses I have. I prefer 135mm on full frame, so will try it on my Nikon D600 (I can't justify buying an A7, just because it has a shorter flange distance). Holding the lens to the body, I can get sharp focus at about 20m - infinity would be nice, but there are plenty of uses for a lens that doesn't quite reach
Has anyone found a good but thin M42 to Nikon F glassless adaptor? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
evilhomura89
Joined: 09 Feb 2017 Posts: 19
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
evilhomura89 wrote:
Is it true that the electric version of this lens comes with better coating? Namely the experimental T* coating. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
glaebhoerl
Joined: 03 May 2014 Posts: 100 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
glaebhoerl wrote:
T* coating is Zeiss Oberkochen and not Zeiss Jena as far as I'm aware, so that part seems doubtful. _________________ use: 40/1.4 Zuiko; 50/1.4 Takumar; 85/2 Rokkor; 105/2.5 Nikkor; 200/5 Zuiko.
have: Lens Turbo II; 20/2.8 Flektogon; "25/1.4 APS-C"; 28/2.8 Industar; 35/1.8 Rokkor; 35-70/3.5 Rokkor; 50/1.4 Prakticar; 50/1.7 Zenitar-M; 50/1.8 Pancolar; 50/2 Jupiter; 55/2.8 Industar; 57/1.4 Hexanon; 58/1.8 RE.Auto-Topcor; 58/2 Helios; 100/2.8 Zuiko; 135/2.8 Pentacon, Yashica ML; 135/3.5 Pentax-M, Rokkor, Fujinon; 180/5.6 Sigma; 200/5.6 Tele-Takumar.
want: 12/2 Samyang; 20/4 Pentax-M; 24/2.8 Zuiko; 28/3.5 Pentax; 35/2.4 Prakticar; 35/3.5 Takumar; 50/1.5 Sonnar; 58/2 Small Biotar; 75/1.8 Fujinon-TV; 100/3.5 Canon (LTM); 135/2.5 Takumar; 135/3.5 Prakticar.
in my dreams: 80/1.8 Prakticar; 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M; 180/4 APO-Lanthar; 250/5.6 Rokkor.
reviews flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
y
Joined: 11 Aug 2013 Posts: 304 Location: EU
|
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
y wrote:
evilhomura89 wrote: |
Is it true that the electric version of this lens comes with better coating? Namely the experimental T* coating. |
In general lenses produced in later years of their production run might have better multi-coating technology applied. So basically higher serial no. ~ better MC tech.
In case of this particular Sonnar, there is a PB-mount version which should have the best MC layers available to Zeiss Jena DDR.
However, this MC tech is certainly not equal to the T*. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
evilhomura89
Joined: 09 Feb 2017 Posts: 19
|
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
evilhomura89 wrote:
glaebhoerl wrote: |
T* coating is Zeiss Oberkochen and not Zeiss Jena as far as I'm aware, so that part seems doubtful. |
Saw a few saying that it's experimental T*, not the actual T* coating.
1. extreme-macro.co.uk/carlzeissjena-135mm
2. allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_1552.html
Does anyone know which is the later serial number? Is those with 4-5 digits?
And what's is the normal coating color cast for the later version of CZJ 135mm? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|